Michigan Legislation

[VapieDan]

So far we here in Michigan have been pretty much left alone. It appears to at least some degree that will change. Of course taxes are the ultimate goal as always.

This is what we have been under up to this point.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/E_cig_factsheet_for_SF_law_website_FINAL6.11.10_324451_7.pdf


This is where we are going.
Banning e-cigarette sales to minors gets OK from Michigan Senate | MLive.com

 

[Tedlee]

Both bills passed the senate with 38-0 vote. Like most, I think kids should not be allowed to buy these. I don't like that they lumped e-cigs in with tobacco though. The sin tax is coming!!

 

[VapieDan]

Indeed. All the health issues are just a ruse to justify taxing.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

We're on the same hunt here ...

1) Today, I ran into this article: E-cigarettes ignite debate over regulation, sales which basically says the same thing. However it's a bit more detailed:

Opponents are countering with a House bill that would treat e-cigarettes as tobacco products.

Rep. Gail Haines, R-Lake Angelus, introduced the bill Wednesday after working with the administration and health groups such as the American Cancer Society and American Lung Association. She declined to comment before the bill was assigned to a committee.

2) So here I am at sponsor search in the house:

Michigan Legislature - Search Bills by Sponsor [your link will be a little diffo]

3) I tried looking up Gail Haines as sponsor or secondary sponsor. The only bill I can come up with, by searching for either "cigarette" or "vapor" w/i the results is this one:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2014-HIB-5393.pdf

[Note also that the introduction date is the 5th, which is just about right.]

But there's absolutely nothing in the bill about taxation, the indoor clean air act, or anything else. Note line #2: as used in this act.

4) So now I'm completely baffled. What ACS and ALA want is for vaping to be defined as smoking for all forms of taxation and regulation. How does this bill add to SB667/8, other than to simply ammend the minor sales ban to cover PVs?? This is far short of what the health dept, the Snyder admin, and the ANTZ orgs want, and is obviously inconsistent with the two press reports that we're looking at.

The only thing I can figure out is that maybe the version that i'm looking at is dated, and the bill will be ammended in cmte, or something like that. Or maybe it's just the wrong bill ... could Rep. Gaines have introduced two bills last week, and for some reason the one that's being ref'd in the press reports is not up on the site?

Sometimes these wild goose chases drive me crazy. I wish the media would provide bill #s as a matter of course. But I guess they're too lazy or don't care.

 

[VapieDan]

We're on the same hunt here ...



Sometimes these wild goose chases drive me crazy. I wish the media would provide bill #s as a matter of course. But I guess they're too lazy or don't care.

I was waiting for this comment to surface.

"E-cigarettes are often produced by the same parent companies as traditional cigarettes and have grown increasingly popular over the past few years. U.S. middle and high school students' use of e-cigarettes more than doubled from 2011 to 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in September"

As soon as Big Tobacco started getting into the industry my fear was the ANTZ would lump e-Cigs in with them.

 

[Tedlee]

I just watched a "Let It Rip" segment on Fox 2 Detroit. Guests were Charles Elias from Vaporcraft and Rep. Henry Yanez. Of course, the main argument by Yanez was the nic addiction/gateway BS. Charles responded very well IMHO. He almost said "water vapor" but caught himself, thank goodness!
Heck, Charlie Langdon was was concerned with why they want regulation on these if it replaces smoking. He compared it to the computer taking over the typewriter!!!!

In their efforts to try and remain unbiased on the topic, they showed a clip of some doctor saying that "some people have found nicotine in second hand [vape]". Some people? WTH?!?! I can do that too....Some people say the sky is falling! See, not hard.

The opposition brought no facts to the table or sited specific studies whereas Charles Elias was well armed.

I think this segment was a minor plus for vapers, even if only a little.

 

[VapieDan]

The legislators must demonize vaping to lump it into the same category as smoking. By the way If the {OTHER STUFF} legalization trend continues you will see the harm to children card being played again. The tobacco taxes worked so well because the data backed up the health risk. The legislators will simply get it made evil first knowing darn well an exiting law will be near impossible to eliminate.

 

[Tedlee]

I agree with you totally about what they are trying to do. This time, the data doesn't support their claims. I am hopeful that science will continue to show this so there is no legal leg for them to stand on about this type of regulation.

 

[Maestro]

Data?? They don't need data. Did they restrict smoking in parks and public areas based on data? Is there truly any data which says someone smoking on a park bench is harming anyone in any way? They don't need data. All they need is to strap on their halos, and shed a tear for the children. They're politicians. This is what they do for a living!! They're professionals at it and know exactly how to manipulate the sheeple.

 

[VapieDan]

The effects of second hand smoke from tobacco is still suspect. What amuses me is when something supports their side it is accepted as gospel truth. The challengers studies are ignored or invalid according to them. Funding from their side is acceptable and the other side suspect. Plant the seeds of doubt then tax tax tax!

 

[Bill Godshall]

The battle in Michigan is whether e-cigs will be legally defined as "vapor products" and "alternative nicotine products" (which is supported by the tobacco and e-cig industries, and by objective individuals) or whether e-cigs will be legally defined as "electronic smoking devices" (which is being lobbied for by CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, the now the MI Chief Medical Executive.

The originally proposed Senate bills (SB 667 & SB 668) would have banned sales of "electronic cigarettes" and "devices that deliver nicotine" to to minors.
But a Senate Cmte amended both bills to ban the sale of "vapor products" and "alternative nicotine products" to minors.Michigan Legislature - Senate Bill 0667 (2013)
SUBSTITUTE FOR
Michigan Legislature - Senate Bill 0668 (2013)
SUBSTITUTE FOR

That prompted the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA to criticize the bills. Then the MI Senate approved both Senate bills, which prompted Michigan Chief Medical Executive Matthew Davis (almost certainly at the request of the ANTZ) to oppose the Senate approved bills
Doctor Wants Lawmakers to Classify E-Cigarettes as Tobacco - FOX 47 News
Effort underway to regulate e-cigarettes | WNMU-FM
E-cigarettes ignite debate between Snyder administration, tobacco industry over regulation

Instead, the ANTZ want HB 5393 enacted because it legally defines e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices".
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/House/pdf/2014-HIB-5393.pdf


This same (or a similar) battle has been and will continue playing out in many different state legislators (as the ANTZ are now lobbying for more than a dozen bills in different states/municipalities to legally defined e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices" so they can return next year to urge the legislatures to ban their use in workplaces (by claiming they are smoking devices just like cigarettes) and to tax them at the same rate as cigarettes (by claiming all smoking products should be taxed at the same rate).

 

[Tamnakz]

I agree with you totally about what they are trying to do. This time, the data doesn't support their claims. I am hopeful that science will continue to show this so there is no legal leg for them to stand on about this type of regulation.

This is my principle concern. My biggest peeve is misinformation, can you guess why I hate news stations?

I think it's absolutely asinine to quantify vaping with smoking. Not unless you're going to tax nic patches and gum the same way!
I don't vape nic, should they get to tax me?

I
As soon as Big Tobacco started getting into the industry my fear was the ANTZ would lump e-Cigs in with them.

Do you think they got into it to compete, or because they anticipated the legal correlation?

 

[Maestro]

When the second hand smoke is as miniscule as what you get from someone smoking outside, common sense would dictate that anyone who is harmed by it would have to live in a bubble. An MSDS will give you safe exposure levels to just about anything, but a whiff of cigarette smoke from 50 yards away is so dangerous they have to ban it. It's ludicrous and its proponents don't even bother with data or studies because even they know it's not going to be there. It's simply behavior control and that's what they're going to use for vapor. When we accepted it for cigarette smoke, the door opened up. They're using it for soft drinks and all is now fair game.

 

[Tamnakz]

Davis says, “After all, liquid in e-cigarettes is extracted from tobacco and so therefore, they are essentially tobacco products . And certainly tobacco-derived products, it would make sense to use the existing regulations that we have about tobacco products and classify e-cigarettes under that existing regulation."

*SMH*

 

[VapieDan]

Gee I wonder how far we can extrapolate that back. Beef come from grass, Grass comes from the ground. The air nourishes the ground. Beef is bad so tax the air.

 

[Tamnakz]

Gee I wonder how far we can extrapolate that back. Beef come from grass, Grass comes from the ground. The air nourishes the ground. Beef is bad so tax the air.

Really, I want to go find this doctor and sit down for a talk.

 

[Maestro]

Davis says, “After all, liquid in e-cigarettes is extracted from tobacco and so therefore, they are essentially tobacco products . And certainly tobacco-derived products, it would make sense to use the existing regulations that we have about tobacco products and classify e-cigarettes under that existing regulation."

*SMH*

I'm curious. If we got the nicotine from tomatoes, would it become a vegetable product?

 

[Tamnakz]

I'm curious. If we got the nicotine from tomatoes, would it become a vegetable product?

Yes.

But there's a difference between 'e liquid comes from tobacco' and 'nicotine comes from tobacco.'

My issue is NOT with the statement that it's still a tobacco product, anyone who uses tobacco sourced nicotine is in fact, still imbibing tobacco.
My issue IS with the blanket disregard for fact. It's politics at it's finest, in fact, stronger than usual. Decisions should fit facts, not the other way around.

 

[VapieDan]

Yes I am in favor of restricting tomato sales to minors. I also favor linking NRTs into E-Cigs and taxing them the same.

 

[rothenbj]

Yes.

But there's a difference between 'e liquid comes from tobacco' and 'nicotine comes from tobacco.'

My issue is NOT with the statement that it's still a tobacco product, anyone who uses tobacco sourced nicotine is in fact, still imbibing tobacco.
My issue IS with the blanket disregard for fact. It's politics at it's finest, in fact, stronger than usual. Decisions should fit facts, not the other way around.

So you're claiming patches, gum lozenges and nicotrol inhalers are tobacco products? Certainly the states haven't taken that stance.